Forget the Leadership. Convince the Judiciary Committee.

Special Assistant to the Attorney General Wrisley Brown wrote in the June 1913 Harvard Law Review:

To determine whether or not an act or a course of conduct is sufficient in law to support an impeachment, resort must be had to the eternal principles of right, applied to public propriety and civil morality. The offense must be prejudicial to the public interest and it must flow from a willful intent, or a reckless disregard of duty. ... It may constitute an intentional violation of positive law, or it may be an official dereliction of commission or omission, a serious breach of moral obligation, or other gross impropriety of personal conduct that, in its natural consequences, tends to bring an office into contempt and disrepute.

Brown's monograph concerned "The Impeachment of the Federal Judiciary." But that paragraph could apply to anyone subject to the Constitution's impeachment remedy.

However much progressives differ about whether impeachment is a proper, well-timed remedy for what ails the U.S. Executive branch at this particular moment in history, there is, I wager, less than a handful who would deny that Mr. Brown's description applies to the two highest officials in today's Executive branch. Indeed, it's a perfect measure for the behavior of the - to choose Larry Wilkerson's word - cabal that's been running our government since January 2001, every day adding to the pile of offenses.

This president and vice president are on the cusp of wrecking what was for many people one of the most important aspects for working so hard to secure a Democratic majority: subpoena power. Wrecking it by using the legal system every bit as cynically as was done in commuting I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence. Rule of law? Sure, when it suits them, when it assists them, when it's a cudgel in their hands.

Those who came to believe in impeachment did so at different times. Some when the Administration made Gitmo into a jurisdictionless no-man's land, free of the rule of law and public scrutiny. Some when torture and rendition and secret prisons were revealed. Some when the Downing Street Memo provided the first hard evidence that the Bush-Cheney Administration had decided ahead of time to go to war in Iraq whatever the evidence. Some when warrantless, domestic spying belatedly hit the news. Some years ago, some weeks, some yesterday.

Impeachment is the right remedy right now. But transforming it from blog-shriek into reality - if that can be done - will require a fresh approach. Those who want Richard Bruce Cheney and/or George Walker Bush (and possibly other high officials) impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate should stop pounding on Nancy Pelosi and concentrate on convincing the 23 people pictured below. If impeachment is going to happen, these are the ones who must be persuaded to take action.

Not Pelosi. She's made her position clear. Not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. These 23 folks. Every one of them a Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee. Twenty-three who are essential to making impeachment happen. They can vote to hold impeachment hearings.

^{Chairman Conyers      Rep. Berman            Rep. Nadler           Rep. Rick Boucher}

^{Rep Scott               Rep. Baldwin          Rep. Watt            Rep. Waters}

^{Rep. Jackson Lee       Rep. Meehan         Rep. Wexler            Rep. Schiff}

^{Rep. Ellison           Rep. Sánchez          Rep. Weiner           Rep. Gutierrez}

 

^{Rep. Johnson            Rep. Sherman        Rep. Davis         Rep. Delahunt}

 

^{Rep. Cohen       Rep. Lofgren    Rep. Wasserman Schultz}

The good news? Two of them - Rep. Keith Ellison and Rep. Maxine Waters - have already signed on as co-sponsors of H Res 333 to impeach Cheney.

That means only 21 to persuade. Obviously, Republicans sit on the Judiciary Committee, too. Seventeen of them. It's essential to have a few of those Republicans vote on the side of Democrats if a committee majority eventually approves Articles of Impeachment and sends them for a vote to the full House. But, first things first. And first, we must convince the committee Democrats.

Here are their names and contact information. They are most likely to listen to constituents from their own districts, naturally. But that shouldn’t stop you from phoning, writing or e-mailing one or more of them, urging them to do what needs to be done.

Chairman John Conyers, Michigan, 14th [phone] Contact him here.
Howard Berman California, 28th [phone] Contact him here
Rick Boucher  Virginia, 9th [phone] Contact him here
Jerrold Nadler  New York, 8th  Contact him here
Robert C. Scott  Virginia, 3rd  [phone] Contact him here
Melvin L. Watt  North Carolina, 12th [phone] Contact him here
Zoe Lofgren  California, 16th [phone] Contact her here
Sheila Jackson Lee  Texas, 18th [phone] Contact her here
Martin T. Meehan  Massachusetts, 5th  Resigned.
William D. Delahunt  Massachusetts, 10th [phone] Contact him here
Robert Wexler  Florida, 19th [phone] Contact him here
Linda T. Sánchez  California, 39th [phone] Contact her here
Steve T. Cohen  Tennessee, 9th [phone] Contact him here
Hank  Johnson  Georgia, 4th [phone] Contact him here
Luis Gutierrez  Illinois, 4th [phone] Contact him here
Brad Sherman  California, 27 [phone] Contact him here
Anthony D. Weiner  New York, 9th [phone] Contact him here
Adam B. Schiff  California, 29th [phone] Contact him here
Artur Davis  Alabama , 7th [phone] Contact him here

Debbie  Wasserman Schultz  Florida, 20th  202-225-7931 Contact her here
Tammy Baldwin  Wisconsin, 2nd [phone] Contact her here

As noted, Rep. Ellison and Rep. Waters already favor impeaching Cheney. So, if you favor impeaching him, give them some hugs.

Keith Ellison  Minnesota, 5th [phone] Contact him here
Maxine Waters  California, 35th [phone] Contact her here.

Many bloggers and elected Democrats - both progressive and not - say that pushing for impeachment now is a distraction from important business, badly timed, unlikely to reach a majority in the House, much less result in conviction in the Senate, and therefore it's a turn-off to independent voters, which could imperil what could be a policy-shifting Democratic landslide in 2008. In other words, the argument goes, pushing impeachment will be counterproductive and potentially disastrous, just when we're on the brink of a huge change for the better in Congress, the Senate and the White House.

The comments I've heard and read make it obvious that many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee hold some or all those views. That is, therefore, exactly what we have to change their minds about, with vigor, passion and persistence, as well as respect. Quite a few people disagree with that last bit, I know. So, let me repeat that I think calling a person a coward, sell-out, sin cojones or "as bad as a Republican" is not a productive way to begin any conversation directed toward changing that person's mind whether in person, on the phone or by e-mail. Hone your best argument not your worst insult.

Some pro-impeachment people don't think there are political risks. They think impeachment has no downside, that impeachment hearings will uncover what there is to be uncovered and fill in the details of what we already have a pretty good idea that Mister Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney, and others have done. If Democrats show some spine, they say, it will help in next year's election, not hurt.

Maybe. But I'm of the opinion that there are political risks to impeachment, and these are no small matter. I wish it weren't so close to the elections. I wish the majorities in the House and Senate were larger. I wish fewer voters bought the crap they get from Foxaganda and its kin, which will certainly be in fine spew if impeachment hearings actually get underway.

But what is our choice? We can't only defend the Constitution when the timing is convenient. We can't always wait until election day to make matters right. If that were the Founders' view, there would be no mention of impeachment in the Constitution. If the Bush-Cheney Administration cannot be compelled to turn over subpoenaed documentation relating to its Constitution-dismantling outlawry, and it plans to try every legal maneuver and delaying techinique at its disposal to avoid that compulsion, what remedy remains?

A court battle over these subpoenaed documents could take, in political terms, forever, with no guarantee at the end of even partial victory. The Nixon Administration engaged in legal wrangling over releasing incriminating audiotapes for more than a year, and that was before rightwingers had their hooks so deeply embedded in the federal judiciary.

The political risks of impeachment must be weighed against what's at risk from not impeaching, for failing to shield the Constitution and the American people from the continuing depredations of the lying, unaccountable cabal that's been in charge for the past six-and-a-half years.